do you know anyone wants vouchers

so the government will pay for their kids to go to some elite private school?

Of course the ultra wealthy and wannabes who send their kids to the exclusive private schools here in New Jersey would love to have a rebate on their tuition fees. But there is also support from Catholics and Hassidic Jews who are sending their kids to private school to provide them with religious education. And I am sure there is support amongst parents in inner city areas where the public schools are dismal who believe the Republican propaganda that they will be able to send their kids to A+ schools with their government vouchers.

the cheapest private school near me is $8,000 (and that doesn't include books and uniforms)...where on earth will these poor people dig up the other 7 grand....GET REAL!!!!

If a voucher program only gave $1000 to each student, then it wouldn't be much of a program. I think many voucher proponents see the idea as a way to reduce spending on education. This should not be the case. A DC plan would give poor students up to $7500 each (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0724/p10s03-comv.html). Such programs could be quite helpful for these students.

for private school tuition, don't you? The private schools would notice that all their customers had a new tolerance for much higher prices and tuition would rise by 1K to 8K.

You know how that entire process could be described? It's a transfer of taxpayer money to churches (no doubt, intended to buy the votes of members of those churches).

for parochial schools nationwide is only $3,125.00

Do you have no parochial schools near you?

Catholic high school. I thought about sending my son there because they're more college focused, but since it's over 60 miles away and the cost... he'll stay in public school. We have a good one, it was just that the Catholic school has a quality reputation. When a kid does well in that school, it really means something. I understand that Catholic schools in Louisiana, for example, have gotten state/federal funding for years for books, etc. Maybe they're so good at getting the funding they can afford to charge less and it helps bring the nationwide average down or something. Catholic school is generally expensive.

or religious at all, why should the only affordable option be a parochial school?

parochial schools as a rule seem to be the cheapest private schools I have found.

and I kow many people that send their kids to Catholic schools even though they themselves are not catholic, or dont even care about religion, because their kids get an excellent education.

because they're subsidized by the church. I'm aware that non-Catholics do send their kids to Catholic schools, but the question was about choice. I teach in a religious school, but I don't plan to send my kids to one. Why should a parochial school be the only affordable option once we empty the public schools?

high school is 40 miles away

I know someone who was trying to borrow $10,000 to put her 2 year old in her church's Christian pre-school.

killing us financially.

I know a few families who have their kids in parochial school for religious reasons, and a few who can afford non-sectarian private schools and do so because the public schools are so screwed up in California.

Of course they want vouchers. From their perspective they're paying twice. I don't have much sympathy for them. The can afford private school, and their contribution to public schools isn't hurting them significantly. We can't afford to not provide a good education to all kids, especially the poorest who generally need it most. The only way to make public schools work is for pretty much everyone, including people with no kids, to pony up.

no way in hell. My daughter isn't in private school for religious or prestigious reasons. We did it to get her away from a certain group of kids. Vouchers? Hell no. I kind of like it that the government has to basically keep their hands off my kid's school, and allowing vouchers would give them that opportunity. And there are a lot of us there who feel that way.

Sorry, I did not mean to speak for you.

There's no way society could reasonably be asked to provide a voucher to offset more than a small percentage of your private school tuition. What does a family contribute to public schools on average anyway? I guestimate somewhere between $1K and $2K, whereas your tuition is probably closer to $10K. Most public school money comes from the taxes of people who don't even have school-age children. We all pay, and it's in our interests to pay.

enough to swing on an hourly paycheck. So you might ask would I feel differently if it were $10000? If it were that high, we'd be toughing it out with the aforementioned group of girls. There are a few anti voucher private school parents that I've met here on the boards though. I just wanted to point that out.

is messed up...every school age kid in Paramus NJ knows where to find the drug dealers...the rich kids can afford to buy bulk and deal..Paramus Catholic High!!!...my nieces and nephews went there and believe me they knew...hell even when i was in school...we knew that Sacred Heart Academy in Hoboken was where everyone went to score!

personal reasons. Assumptions do no good....anywhere. Thanks.

i did not mean to imply your situation personally...i was just stating my personal experiences....please forgive me?

:-)

When the federal government began to fund research at universities, many presidents were against the idea because they were afraid that the government would begin to muck around with the programs. The same might start to happen if private schools received massive amounts of state dollars.

if as in Cleveland, and Milwaukee; the voucher value is $2500 . then every child that leaves the pbulic school district for the voucher program is actually leaving MORE money for the other students in the public district, due to the fact that the public school district is getting $9000 per kid to educate them.

So they lose 2500, they still have the other $6500 plus one less kid to educate. They should be happy.

Fact is, that public schools have had 20 years since "A nation at risk" to improve the quality odf the education they deliver. 20 years of warnings, 20 years of pleadings, 20 years of court challenges; They have not improved their services.

They have noone to blame but themselves for the situation in which they currently find themselves.

You are making an arithmetical argument that is apparently beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of publick skool advocates on this board. Or perhaps the NEA crib sheet doesn't provide an answer, and independent numbers-crunching is too intimidating.

Believe me, I've made the same point two dozen times on other threads. The usual response is to ignore the observation.

Perhaps folks will respond to you, but I doubt it. You are, of course, absolutely correct. As long as the voucher is set below the public school system's total per-student cost, each student who opts out with a voucher represents (1) a reduction in class size and (2) a net financial gain to the public schools.

This arithmetical fact, however, will not stop opponents from claiming that vouchers will financially drain the public schools. Go figure.

that vouchers would mathematically leave more money for the public school. But they lead people to give up on the public school system. Vouchers are also a product of people who have given up on the system. Public schools are not businesses, they do not "compete" for students. They live or die by how the public motivates the school board. If the public wants lower taxes instead of good public schools, the school board will give it to them. If the fed govt. gives vouchers for schools that fail, i believe it will encourage some schools to intentionally fail, in order to get the "free" money from the federal govt., thus allowing the school board to lower taxes and get reelected, all at the expense of school quality. Vouchers are also deadly to public schools because they will remove those who really care about a good education from the system. Each school district needs those people to ensure good quality.
I went to high school in a town with a large group of these anti-tax people. Our schools took major hits because of this selfishness. Vouchers would make the situation worse. People who cared could escape, and the public schools, if they survive at all, would be neglected after they are drained of their revenue by tax-cutters (as they would have little opposition). They would have only students with lower acheivement, and more behavioral problems (because these kids would have the hardest time getting into private schools), leaving republicans an argument and an opening to dismantle the public school system entirely. (self-fulfilling prophecy)
I won't even go in to how vouchers don't really help poor or disadvantaged students anyway. This post is long enough. The point is, that public schools are not drained of funds simply by the voucher, but by what transpires in the community because of the voucher.

The most interesting thing about your post is that you display great concern for the success of public schools and absolutely none for public school students. Which begs the question, if I created a system that killed all public schools but provided better education for students, would you be in favor of it or opposed?

FIRST; People are giving up on public schools because most public schools dont treat the parent with respect, they are condescending, and view parents as a obstacle to be overcome.

SECOND: Vouchers are a simple way to give the educational establishment a wake up call, to induce a little competition into the mix. To introduce a little accountability into the mix, and to allow poor parents options.

THIRD: They do not compete for students because they have a captive funding source. They get paid wether kids go to the school or parents send them to private schools.

FOURTH: As for your argument regarding tax dollars vs. school quality, there is no correlation. Since 1960 total spending on public schools has TRIPLED IN INFLATION ADJUSTED DOLLARS!!!! Can you honestly say that school quality has increased at all?

FIFTH: do you realize that until this century their was no public schools system as we would recignize it today? And we enjoyed a reasonably well educated populace by the standards of the time.

SIXTH: How can you say that vouchers do not help the poor when the empirical evidence form Milwaukee and Cleveland prove otherwise. Fact, if you are poor, and live in an inner city, vouchers are your only hope to get your child a quality education.

WHY IS THE ISSUE SAVING THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHEN IT SHOULD BE HOW TO EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN ON A LEVEL THAT THEY CAN COMPETE INTERNATIONALLY?


And as a last argument; How can we as democrats hail ourselves as the champion of the poor and minorities when we consistently vote to lock poor minority children into schools which we know will fail to educate them, thereby locking them out of the American dream, and consigning them to burger flippng for the rest of their lives?

Particularly when we can do SO much better!

. . . per pupil revenue with the district. So, in our case, the student would get a voucher for $4,760, and the district would keep $840.

Depending on how many kids take advantage of it - and my guess is very few in our district - it's probably not a big deal, financially.

Philosophically, however, I can't stand the idea of my tax dollars going to support religious schools, which are the only private schools in our area.

Does that count?

private christian schools in Houston that owns his own buisness and is quite well off and when i asked him if he thought these vouchers would really help get poor kids enrolled in his childrens schools (tution $25k and he has 3 kids enrolled) he laughed and said "no, but, it will at least pay for my kids books"....this was last year...he is singing a different song this year he will NOT vote for bush again!...his business is suffering really badly!...i still dislike this guys selfishness!

I'm in favor of vouchers, to an extent. I would love to see a system of education set up where the schools that do the best job get the most money and parents get a choice of where to send their kids. I'm a little concerned about taxpayer money going to religious schools, but given that we already send millions of dollars to religous colleges and universities I fail to see why people think this is somehow different than what we already do today. My only requirements would be that private religous schools would be required to teach the same subjects as public schools, and take the same tests as public school students so we can really see how effective they are. In other words, if some wacko fundy group wants to start a school that's fine, but they have to teach kids evolution and the kids will be tested to see if they really learned it.

I normally see the better private schools putting out kids that score high on SAT's and get into better colleges. Isn't that a indicator?

The SAT is not a broad based test, it only tests math and verbal skills. I think we need to also know how these schools are doing teaching history, science, languages, etc.

A school that only has 20% of its kids testing is going to have higher test scores. A school that expels or otherwise gets rid of the 25% of it's worst performing students is also going to have higher test scores. And a school that doesn't offer services for disabled kids in the first place, is also likely to end up with higher test scores.

No results until Junior yr.?

Until the public school systems can actually show that they are able to handle our children. Poor parents have no other option except to send their kids to substandard schools.

Will the voucher money be sufficient to get the kids of POOR people into really good private schools? I think they can be pretty pricey.

At least not high school...I graduated from prep school 8 years ago, and it costs about $22,000 for a day student tuition there now. When I went, my parents had tons of financial aid, but they still paid thru the nose to send me there.

to get thm into Choate, or st. albans, or Andover

it is to get them into a school where they will get a better education than they are gtting in the public schools.

my guess is that many public school teachers would quit and set up their own small schools to try teaching and running a school the way they always thought it should be done.

I would bet there would be new private schools opening everywhere, each stressing a different curriculum or a different style of teaching. One school run by the music teacher, another by an english teacher, another by the old teacher who believes in firm discipline.

Many would fail and be gone in a year or two. Many would do okay and some would succeed wildly.

I don't know why all the fear. Let 1,000 flowers bloom. If the school sucks, no parents will send their kids there and it will be gone.

If a public school sucks, it sticks around for ever doing its damage.

Someone who gets it! Thank you!

and what if it doesn't happen? what then?

You don't just keep doing something that you know doesn't work.

I'm glad FDR didn't listen to his advisors who told him that these new programs were big gambles, and what if they don't work. He said he was improvising.

Wouldn't that be better than the rotten school he's now in? (for those kids currently in the worst of schools)

and not into church schools. Like I said above, if everyone got 1000 bucks which they could only use for tuition at a private school, private schools are going to raise tutions. This is a transfer of taxpayer money straight to the church coffers. How that's supposed to help public schools I do not know.

DC public schools have some of the highest teacher salaries in the country and still suck. I wouldn't send my dog to one of those hell holes.

We need to increase accountablility as well as funding. Teacher unions are becoming a real pain in the ass, as they make it difficult to get rid of failing teachers.

Another thing that has to change is this garbage of sueing teachers that fail your kid. Many parents have done this and if teachers can't fail anyone then they can't do their job.

Its SOOOOO easy to blame the school, the teachers, the principal. Are there better teachers in private schools? NO, emphatically no. Private schools pay so much less than public schools that they have a hard time retaining teachers, so they have to struggle with the most inexperienced teachers.

Before you start throwing money at a problem, you better be sure you know what you're doing. Vouchers will do one thing and one thing only. Pay for those students who are already in private schools.

What happens to the child who goes to a private school on a voucher? Nothing that didn't happen to that same child in public school except that the private school can kick the kid out if they are not performing up to standard. And where will that child go then? Back to the public school. THAT's why private schools seem to do better. They can pick and choose their students, while public schools must accept everyone. Do you really think private schools are going to allow their scores to be diluted by non-performing students who arrive clutching a voucher? Think again.

Want to improve public schools? Great. Get involved with your neighborhood school, get involved with your community, make conditions better for the community and the school. Just a bit harder than throwing money at the problem, eh?

And by the way. STOP, right now, stop calling any school a failing school. You are putting a stigma on that school that affects the attitude of every child attending the school (Why should I try? I go to a crappy school, so I might as well not even bother.) Schools don't fail, students do. Try to help those students by being there for them. You will make a much greater difference than putting a voucher into that child's hands and allowing them to fail at a private school.

The history of the last 30 years of the educational system in this country shows that putting more money into schools does not necessarily help them. Systematic reform is what's really needed, and far more important than money.

the rw meme that too many people swallow. MONEY is the damn solution, plus management reform.

$ 9,000 per student and it still sucks, then money is not its problem.

I just don't get the drive to attack the very Progressive idea of compulsury Public Education.

It's as if John Dewey had never written "Democracy & Education"...

Is that many of the urban school systems suck beyond belief. Sure, long term I'm all for improving the school systems or even outsourcing. But what do we do NOW?

For poor parents in those systems, there are no options.

will result in the decimation of the public school system. And how will it help the CHILDREN of this generation if, when they have to go to school, the ONLY option is a private school which charges tuition? If we give taxpayer money away to churches, and people stop going to public schools, there is no way anyone is ever again going to be able to justify increasing taxes to rebuild a school which nobody is attending.

Vouchers are designed to destroy public education.

Your post assumes that it isn't already destroyed in many areas. Trust me, it is.

Yes, we need to worry about the future AFTER we save the children of the present, not before.

The worst school systems need to be totally rebuilt -- from the bottom up. Schools, books, administrators, teaching methods, etc. That takes time, in the meantime, I don't want to lose another generation to those institutions of poorer learning.

this is the real problem...one that vouchers do nothing to address.

Vouchers are designed to destroy public education.

Vouchers are designed to destroy bad public schools. Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

and give it as a gift to private religious schools whose response to the vouchers will be raise their tuition? This doesn't help families who can afford private schools. Their tuitions will go up. For families who could only afford the voucher amount, they won't be able to afford the new higher tuitions. Except for a very few on the margin, most will remain in public schools which will now have NO money.

private schools will simply raise their tuition by that amount?

It hasn't happenned anywhere there are vouchers currently. Do you have empirical evidence to this effect, or is this simply your feeling?

As a practical matter it make no sense. Not everyone willl have a voucher, so raising their tuition is not going to expand their customer base. Why would they shoot themselves in the foot?

The other is coming from religious types wanting to get the State to pay for their Private indoctrination centers.

I've read quite a bit about the DC schools and frankly it appears to be more of a Social/Economic issue than pure funding.

It seems that the number of Administrators to Teachers is abnormally high and even when addressed doesn't change. That there is a resistance to all change out of a fear of job loss.

Why is this? Because the School District was used to create a Black Middle Class in DC and who in their right mind wants to give that up?

In my estimation the problem is not with the schools but Society as a whole.

If people will lose jobs then so be it. They have a job to do and if they can't do it, which they currently are showing to be true, then they have to go. We can't worry about what middle class will be created or destroyed in this situation.

Either do the job or good bye nice to know you.

It's about structure and society, period.

I love the way people can sacrifice others from the comfort of home:-)

Isn't that what this is all about? The anti-voucher people here are saying no, don't harm the school system. But the school system is already damaged so bad that many people don't want their kids there. Unfortunately, only the wealthy can opt out.

or at least they were here in california. i call it 'generational selfishness.' the problem of course, is funding...and people who don't want to pay for it. we once had the best school system in the united states, now we have one of the worst. the reason it has everything to do with funding, and nothing to do with "bad schools."

It has tons of money and the schools still suck.

probably not. that's because their are too many people running things who don't know a damn thing about money, business or management. perhaps it's time to adopt a different management model.

"perhaps it's time to adopt a different management model"

Well said. There is not much wrong with the public schools that closing down all the schools of education in the universities wouldn't cure (after a 20-30 year purge cycle).

I choose adults. I'm sorry but kids, especially those in poor areas, need a good education. The DC school system is corrupt and should be completely reworked. The school board has been caught stealing and the teachers while paid highly compared to their peers from other districts continue to under acheive.

If you have a job, any job, you should be held accountable. If I fail at mine my boss will not hesitate to shove me out the door. The education system should be no different.

teachers, however, get most of the blame. i think the focus should be more on the entire educational beauracracy...starting with school boards.

In my personal situation, my kid is going to the most expensive school in town ($ 7,800 this year, but will eventually cost $ 10,000 as he moves up in grades, assuming no rate hikes - haha).

Today was the first day of first grade for my kid. He's been at the school two years though (pre-k and kindergarten).

When we took kiddo to class today, we got a surprise. The high school seniors were in his class. Each senior had the name of a first grader. Greeted him at the door, showed him his desk, sat him down and got him working on his first assignment and gave him a school t-shirt that said class of 2015. That senior will be his buddy all year and do many projects with him. Last year, his buddy was a junior, the running back of the football team. They read together, did projects together. He loved it.

How neat was that? We were impressed.

So, blame the beaurocracy or the school boards or the teachers, but those poor kids in suck inner city schools are not being educated. I hope something is done for them, but I'm making sure my kid is flying ahead. He reads Hank the Cowdog in Kindergarten.

or a school like the one he attends? probably not.

is it conceivable that vouchers would simply recreated a different version of the same problem, that is, those who have money get better schools...those who don't...still don't?

if someone could convince me this same problem won't exist with vouchers, i might change my mind about the issue.

the parent with the voucher would have 20 different schools to choose between. Some would only have 20 kids in them. Some would be bigger, but the parent would have a choice, and if she made a bad choice, she could change to somewhere else.

When I used to teach, I sometimes had conferences with parents (often just a single mom or a grandma) of my worst kids. There were kids who had reputations that everyone hated them before they even arrived at the school, but when I had these conferences, I found something amazing.

The grandmother knew her kid was in trouble. She had been called to these conferences for years before I called her in ninth grade, but still, every time...

I was amazed at how much these people cared for their kid. The most unprepared parent or grandparent still loved and wanted the best for her kid, no matter how much trouble he had been in.

This taught me that the parents should have rights to make these kinds of decisions, because no one else cares for those kids as much as the parents do.

So, no, vouchers wouldn't get that kid in the most expensive school in town. In fact, they probably wouldn't even help me because my school would just raise its prices even more. But there would be places that the kid could go, and the parent would have choices better than a festering school that hasn't worked for 20 years.

i'd like these questions answered before i will accept vouchers as a viable alternative. and of course, the class issue would still be present, and perhaps even moreso than now, because vouchers would do nothing to help poor parents get their kids into exisiting private schools.

mostly started by teachers or administrators who have always thought they could do better than the way they are being told to do things.

If you want these teachers and assistant principals to quit their jobs and set up alternative cottage schools now so that they would be ready for the day that vouchers would be created, I think you're asking the impossible.

given the non-existent private schools to accomodate ps students, yet some are willing to gamble on what they think MIGHT happen...great non-existent "alternative."

often require risks.

I don't think there's any way around that.

And every time you take a risk, there will always be someone scared, hiding in the corner, just waiting to say "I told you so," if it doesn't work.

Still, luckily there are many Americans still willing to take a risk to start a new company, invent a new product, invest in a startup business.

Without these people, we would not enjoy the standard of living we have.

before adopting an untested and unproven idea. i'd like to see how current voucher experiments do before advocating them wholesale.
so far, the results have not lived up to the claims.

How about a student who didn't do their homework?

How about a student who doesn't behave in class?

Everyone is missing the elephant in the room. Private schools can kick out anybody who doesn't perform up to standard.

Where do those students go? To the public schools who have to accept ANYONE who shows up at their door.

Why are students failing in schools? How about holding students accountable for their own performance.

Gee, what a radical idea. People are being held accountable for their own actions. Gee whiz. Whodda thunk it?

its about being incompetent.

do you realize that; Only 32% of K-12 teachers have core knowledge proficiency in the subject they are teaching.

that in 1998 60% of the graduates of Mass. teachers colleges failed a certification test that was designed on a 10th grade level. After 3 retakesof the EXACT SAME test 40% STILL FAILED.

That in 1998 the average SAT scores of freshmen in techers colleges nationwide was only 984!!! Out of 3000 surveyed, the high was 1082(median SAT scores nationwide among all colleges was 1084) and the low was 692!!!!

692!!! THAT person is a functional idiot and is now standing at the front of a classroom teaching others to be idiots.

Parental involvement is considered to be the #1 determining factor in how well kids will perform in school.

There's also the option of carefully picking and choosing your school district via where you live (unless bussing is an issure).

instead of using failing urban schools as a political football...and an excuse to do nothing.

most poor parents don't have the additional funds necessary to pay for private school or the ability to transport their children themselves.

Charter schools have been very successful in my area and more than half of them are for underprivilaged children. This is another option to vouchers and failing public schools that folks should take a serious look at.

Why can't we just improve the failing Public Schools?

Gee, why has no one thought of that before? </sarcasm>

I think the problem is that in 30 years no one has figured out a way of improving failing public schools, and its not for lack of trying.

Perhaps taking into account that not only classroom size but school size is vitally important?

Perhaps by National standards that keep incompetants (Not that Private schools are populatioed by brilliant teachers!) out?

Perhaps by trying to be creative rather than giving up like a bunch of sticking losers?

Better than trashing them.

K'?

I agree with your ideas, but it simply takes too long for government to fix the problem. Parents of kids in inner city school have been complaining about school quality for 30 years, and they are tired of waiting. Instead of a system that takes decades to reform, what's wrong with a system that gives control to the parents? The minute parents see something wrong with a school, they have the freedom to put their kids into a different school. No waiting for politicians to act, no fighting with school boards, etc. You see a problem, and you fix it immediately.

That's the reform our children need, not the current system that is aloof and unresponsive. I find it ironic that the same people that are pro-choice when it comes to abortion are anti-choice when it comes to schools. If the mantra "if you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" should apply here as well.

politicians and the teachers unions have been coming up with new programs to create better education for 30 years, they have only worsened the problem.

How long do you wish to continue to allow them to keep tinkering, before you admit that this isnt working, we need a fresh approach, COMPETITION?

No, really, it's TRUE!

Go ahead, sell them off, just like that company in Ohio (The one that forced the sale of Cleveland's Utilities) that blacked out the East Coast. Yeah, that worked wonders:eyes:

The government should pay for education where ever a child goes, however this would be too expensive. Some private schools would jack up their prices.

She has withering disdain for the public school system, the "low standards, the rabble".

For her, everything has to be "the best". Or at least better than what others have. Her kid is in private school, which she and her husband can easily afford, but she's all for vouchers and why not? Her husband's auto dealership isn't doing as well as in previous years,and the maintenance on their vacation condo is killing them. They could really use the help.

My public school was good compared to other publics but crap compared to private. Teachers are over worked and under paid and most simply don't give a shit. Private schools tend to take better care of their employees and since people pay a great deal to send their kids there they are held instantly responsible for their shortcomings.

I don't have the option of refusing to pay any money to a public school if I feel they are not doing their job. With a private school they have to compete for my money and thus strive for a higher standard.

that the average K-12 teacher salary in this country is $41,250

but remember that is for only 8 months work.

Most people make less than that for 50 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. with 2 weeks vacation.

Teachers have excellent pay for the time invested, and absolutely awesome benefits.

For people straight out of college or people who want the two weeks at Christmas and month off over the summer, being a teacher is great. But few highly skilled, highly motivated people are going to take a job where you won't ever make over $50,000.

Then you should blame the teacher's unions that created a system where pay is determined by years of service, not teaching ability.

like those that contributed to the problems here in oakland, ca...now under state suprervision. the school board here, like in many places, is a BIG part of the problem.

that a system based on time spent and not on performance is laughable. Just because someone doesn't get fired doesn't mean they deserve a raise.

you didn't answer my question...
i have no beef with revamping the american way of doing business.

few of the new teachers coming into the field each year can be described as "Highly- Skilled"

and it's so difficult for someone who is highly skilled to jump all the hurdles to get in. me for example...BA and MA plus 20 years of business and accounting experience. i would be looking at a starting salary of maybe $25,000 as a teacher. i can't afford to teach :shrug:

and an MA, you would start at 36,000, rising to 45,000 in five years. At the max schedule, you would make 65,000.

I have an MBA but cannot teach in a public school because I do not have a teaching certificate, I need 4 years of indoctrination to get that.

I have seen the curriculum at UMass Amherst school of Ed. If they would just let me take the end of course tests I could have that degree in less then a year.

you still need a teaching credential. i am now investigating ways to bypass this requirement, to see if i can pass a few more tests to satisfy it. sheesh...how difficult must they make it to teach? it's almost as if they really don't want people to do it.

I know this idiot conservative who thinks he deserves vouchers for his three kids so he can help pay for their private Catholic school, because he should "get my money back for my own family". He is under the delusion that every penny of his tax dollars goes directly into the public education cofferes, apparently. I have tried to explain to him numerous times, to no avail, that his tax dollars actually go into dozens of different coffers and that the vouchers he would receive ($1500 per child proposed by the Bush plan, he has 3 kids) would far exceed his personal tax contribution to the federal public education system. (He's not exactly Warren Buffet)

And Catholic schools are subsidized by the church! I ask you, what private school costs anywhere near as little as $1500? Most
are at least $10,000 a year. I think the only thing vouchers would do would be to encourage a proliferation of fly-by-night charter scools whose tuition exactly matches the voucher amount, but who would provide a substandard product. They would have to, I don't think you can operate on that little per student without federal help.

Most of my neighbors have Mercedes Benzs, Lexuses, BMWs, Volvos, and Infinitis.

If I got a voucher to buy a Lexus I would feel I fit in better.

would a voucher help them buy a lexus too?

No one seems to bring up how well public school has done and is doing in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Are all those kids who trounce our own in math and science, etc. in private school? No? Hmm....

:)

If we implemented nationwide vouchers tomorrow, there aren't enough private schools to take all these kids anyway. If the private schools were required to provide services to every single student, they wouldn't have programs in place to do it. If they tried to implement programs to serve handicapped and learning disabled students, they wouldn't have any real measurement of curriculum in order to make a qualified decision.

Curriculum. What works by measuring its use in schools. Teaching methods. What works by measuring its use in schools. Principal's managment style. What works by measuring its use in schools.

That's the way I see it.

The private sector doesn't take forever to make decisions. If you vote on vouchers this year and pass them, there will be a lot more private schools next year.

In the meantime, what do you advise? Hundreds of thousands of parents have children in failed schools right now. What do you say to them?

THIS is what the rw is really pushing for. there have been several articles posted here about EMO's...i'll track one down.
do we really need MCSKOOLS? do we really want to repeat the diasater of the HMO model?

For the current students, not for students 20 years from now?

fix the CURRENT problems NOW :shrug:

Isn't that what we are discussing here?

Some people believe that the best way to fix the problems is to enact vouchers. Others believe you should give existing schools more money. Other believe that reform of how schools are funded is required. This whole thread is a debate over solutions.

Except for your post. You seem to think we should just "fix" it. Gee, why didn't we think of that? </sarcasm>

they are NOT a fix, they are an ABANDONMENT...and a lot of wishful, fuzzy thinking. and one step closer to EMO's. the bush administration has zero interest in fixing anything. per usual, their interest is in creating opportunity for private companies to suck off the public teat, thereby enriching their campaign contributors.

Vouchers are a systematic change that enables all other reforms. Right now, if a school is failing there is little to no motivation for change. Parents can complain, as they have for 30 years, and problems don't get fixed. The reason that they don't get fixed is because there is little to no incentive to fix them. If parents were able to pull their kids into other schools and the school lost money when they did so, then schools would not be so slow to change.

Moreover, vouchers are not an "abandonment". Polls show that 85% of all parents would leave their child in their current school even if given the choice to leave. Cries about vouchers "killing" public schools are therefore hogwash. Vouchers wouldn't kill public schools, they would kill bad schools.

to private businesses, and little more. and not all schools are "failing"...this a part of hysteria that has been manufactured for this "solution."

Do you have kids?

as we speak. one of my sister's kids went to private school, the other sister's kids go to public school. the sister who opted for private school lives in LA proper, the one who sent her kids to public school lives in Riverside, CA.
vouchers would help my sister in LA who makes six figures, and do little for my sister who lives in Riverside, who does not make six figures, and who does not live in an area where schools are "failing." my sister in LA opted for private school, and she paid for it. her neighbors, who don't make six figures still couldn't afford to send their kids to the private school where she sent her kids.

vouchers are a SMOKEACREEN that play on hysteria and desparation.
i believe the public school system is still worth fixing, after all it educated most of the people in this country...when it was valued and funded properly and addressing the realities of some of the communities they serve.

You have no kids and you are about to become a teacher. No wonder you push for the status quo.

As I am sure you know, public school teachers are significantly more likely than the general public to opt for private schools for their own kids. Noiretblu will learn ....

the ones already here.

:eyes: actually wanting to work as a teacher, and to educate all children. THAT is an evil, horrible, sinister plot if there ever was one.

You're just anti-choice. You believe that teacher and bureaucrats know what's better for kids than parents.

to private companies and the specter of educational management organizations. in the meantime, i'll try to reach as many kids as i can...it's a personal issue with me.

i was educated in a school system that is now so horrible, i would never consider sending my child, or any child there. but i was educated in that same school system, and i went to college, and graduate school. there are far more people just like me, than there are graduates of private schools...or dropouts.

i have friends who are teachers and principals in the school system where i live, oakland, ca...it's a mess. i am not naive or idealistic...just practical and realistic.

it just makes more sense to save and fix an institution that has served this nation well. why the nation won't respond to the crisis, as it responded to 911...that's my question.

They are just responding in a way that you don't approve.

The poor parents of kids in Cleveland's failing schools complained about the quality of their schools for years and nothing happened. Embracing vouchers is an act of desperation by people that were sick and tired of people like you telling them they would fix the problem. What you forget is that kids don't stop growing up. Do you actually believe that you can complain about a high school being poor and see real results before four years have passed and your kid is out? Please, change in school bureaucracy is glacial, the past thirty years has proved that. Not only will your kid be long gone by the time anything happens, but her/his younger siblings will probably be gone as well.

You can talk all day long about the reforms that need to happen. What I'm saying is we need to change the way reform happens, because the current system doesn't allow reform in a timely fashion.

would you agree? and who's to say the same thing won't happen with vouchers? will there be more accountability? the florida situation doesn't exactly bear out your beliefs. and even in cleveland, i believe some parents are opting back into the public system.

systemic change is what's needed...not a replication of the same problem in another TYPE of system. the business of schools needs to be reformed vs. making education a business. i have little faith in business to solve problems, unlike some.

vouchers still won't do anything to guarantee that kids in cleveland or anywhere else will get a montessori or a friends school education...or a beverly hills high education (a public school)

the class gap in education will just become even more pronounced. and of course, this is the real problem. it can be solved in a more equitable manner.

systemic change is what's needed

What systemic changes do you suggest?

to many wasteful layers of management diverting resources that should go to schools. i would abolish school boards, to start. as i said, the business of schools needs to be reformed.

So, great, you want to abolish the only way ordinary people have any input into the system. Boy, you have already become a teacher.

should have MORE control and input. i support more localized control, and less beauracracy.

Noiretblu is not anti-choice. She isn't advocating forcing kids to go to public school. She's saying that vouchers are a bad idea. Parents are free to send their kids to whatever school they want or educate them at home. Public school are not a "monopoly", that is RW propaganda. She is saying "Why should we pay to send rich kids to private schools?"

So basically you're saying that only rich people should have a choice?

Again, look at health care. There are cadillac physicians and hospitals that 95% of us don't have access to because of the cost.

When private schools are required by law to provide the same services that public schools are required to provide, I will consider school vouchers.

You write: "When private schools are required by law to provide the same services that public schools are required to provide ...."

That's a nice slogan, but it conceals a trap.

Public schools -- not everywhere and not all the time, but too often -- have been saddled with limitations and obligations that directly undermine their educational mission. The inability to effectively discipline incorrigible students is one key example. The mandate to mainstream 101 varieties of disabled students is another. Arbitrary restrictions on hiring and firing staff is a third.

Out in the gilded suburbs where most kids have two parents at home, have their homework and bedtimes monitored, have been semi-civilized by age five, and show up fed in the morning, the tough cases amount to a manageable fraction and the schools can still function. A big part of what has happened in the cities, however, is that the tough cases have reached critical mass. Once that happens, they wreck the classrooms and overwhelm the school. IMO, urban school systems need to channel these kids into highly structured remedial tracks and, perhaps, even specialized institutions. Unless that is done, the regular classrooms simply cannot be salvaged, and the middle class will flee to the 'burbs or private schools. That is where we are now.

It is a mistake to insist that private schools be held to the same dysfunctional requirements that sabotage too many public schools. We should be copying success, not universalizing failure. Maybe what we need to do is free the public schools to compete.

why should we subsidize private schools for rich parents? once all the smoke clears, this is the real issue.

No there won't be 100s of private schools next year. Besides, haven't you been following the reports on Florida as well as charter schools? Administrators running off with funds. Kids dropped off the enrollment lists to avoid accuracy in achievement rates. Schools that aren't teaching the state mandates. Vouchers and charter schools have not proven to be a panacea.

And the rest of my post:

"Curriculum. What works by measuring its use in schools. Teaching methods. What works by measuring its use in schools. Principal's managment style. What works by measuring its use in schools."

I lived in Nevada for a very brief time. In trying to choose where to live based on the school district, I contacted the State Dept of Ed. I wanted more information on exactly what I just listed. They said they don't measure any of that because they can't make recommendations because that would be interfering with local control. So there's no way to compare what schools are doing and why one works or would be better for your child than another. No wonder we don't know what to do with our schools. Private schools would eventually end up being exactly the same. If you don't identify the underlying problems, you haven't solved anything.

any? yet vouchers proponents continue to make that claim as if vouchers are a panacea. as your post mentions...the REALITY is quite different. beware of right-wingers bearing easy solutions.

But there is 30 years of evidence that says the existing system will not solve our current problems. You mock people that want to try something that has no proof of working, but how stupid is it to insist on doing something that has a proven record of failure?

that wasn't always as bad as it is now. how stupid is it to adopt a totally new system, without any evidence that it will actually work? REALLY STUPID.

For the government and the NEA and the hundreds of schools systems to get off their collective asses and try and fix things.

Vouchers provide a quicker solution.

The poor?

The poor have no choice now. Give them a decent voucher and there WILL be options.

Private school tuition is, on average, a LOT more money than any voucher program will provide. Please explain how a voucher program that leaves a several-thousand-dollar gap between it and tuition offers a genuine option to the poor.

If you come up with a VIABLE voucher plan, the private sector will fill in the gaps.

Those price prep schools all have lots of land, fancy classrooms, big-name teachers, etc. It's all nice, but not needed for success. Give the poor a chance at education too.

If you come up with a VIABLE voucher plan, the private sector will fill in the gaps.

Really? With their performance, and therefore their bottom line at stake, will these schools willingly educate, say, autistic kids?

and only took in 20 kids, say 20 who've had discipline problems in the past, and did an extravagantly fantasticly luscious job of educating them? What if they made more progress in one year than in their whole life in the classroom?

Would your answer be "Yeah, but none of the 20 kids were autistic?"

If we can help some of the kids shouldn't we?

It's just that you're conveniently forgetting that the mandate of the private school - being a business - is to make money. If it doesn't make money, it goes out of business. Competition, remember?

Or are you suggesting that the country is filled with people who can simultaneously run a shoestring business (including fundraising) and adequately educate twenty discipline-issue kids, many of whom will come from disastrously broken homes and arrive at school with an empty stomach, alone? If so, I'd like some of what you're smoking.

who would open a one-room schoolhouse so to speak, so they can educate the kids the way they had always wanted to, but weren't allowed to.

If you took in 20 kids with their $ 8,000 vouchers, that wuld give the teacher $ 160,000 to work her magic in her one-room school.

Would magic result? Maybe sometimes yes and sometimes no. The ones who didn't succeed would go back to work for public schools. The ones who were successful would make lots of money and even expand their successful ideas to more schools and more kids.

Why would someone be against this? I understand why Unions would be against it, but why would th rest of us not want to try.

They already can do this is many states. It's had mixed results. A school in Washington State was in real trouble when they discovered the Administrator had been embezzling and ran off with all the money. A school in Arizona had problems because the building standards weren't up to code. A school in Oregon had problems because the teacher wasn't teaching the state requirements. If you don't figure out what truly makes schools work and how to realistically measure that, you'll never fix education.

Your underlying assumption in #152 is that "discipline-issue kids, many ... from disastrously broken homes ... arrive at school with an empty stomach" should be integrated into regular classrooms.

Not so fast there, pardner.

The empty stomachs we can easily fix. But the discipline issues, emotional problems, learning disabilities, etc. should not be glossed over so quickly.

A lot of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds will simply be lost in a regular classroom filled with middle class kids. Alternatively, if the classroom is dominated by tough-case kids, the middle class kids will be disserved. The poor don't have a lot of options, but middle class parents will not stand for this indefinitely. They will move to the 'burbs, or opt for private schools. I live in DC where this process is nearly complete; with a handful of tenuous exceptions, the middle class is basically gone.

I'm not rash enough to assert a universal remedy. It needs to be sorted out on a case-by-case basis, trusting in the professionalism of the teachers but also recognizing that there are limits to how much we should ask teachers to juggle.

That said, my hunch is that public schools need to regain the freedom they used to have -- and that private schools still enjoy -- to discipline effectively and, if need be, expel the incorrigibles. There is also, IMHO, probably too much mainstreaming of behaviorially and learning disabled kids.

The assumption that each and every public school MUST take everyone who walks in the door is a product of the last 30 or 40 years. It is an erroneous assumption that has done great harm. Certainly, we need to do a much better job than used to be done helping handicapped kids, but not at the expense of sabotaging everyone else's education.

Bottom line: we probably need much more tracking and, in urban school systems where economies of scale make it possible, many more specialized remedial schools.

if we can put people on the goddamn moon, and spend billions to kill people...NOW, then...WHY WAIT?

if there is such a crisis, then why can't devote the resources to fix the current system...NOW? vouchers are unproven, and test cases have, at best mixed results, so if they are designed to address the crisis...then is NO GUARANTEE IT WILL WORK.

i'm curious as to why conservatives support the demise of an institution that is a part of the infrastructure of this nation.
one that has contributed far more to the progess of this nation than any other educational institution. why would conservatives propose diverting funds from such an important instituion?
it seems more a self-serving, radical and wreckless proposal than a conservative one.

the current system it is worth saving and fixing...and we could do it IF WE GAVE A DAMN. the truth is: as a nation, we dont. we have other priorities.

Vouchers merely provide access.

In the case of failed school systems, even optimists know it would be years trying to make things better.

will there be Montessoris in east los angeles, east oakland, east palo alto, and east st, louis? NO. what is likely to be in east oakland, and other predominantly minority areas....McSkools.

so, you're advocating shifting this problem from one system to another, for the benefit of those already paying private school tuition, and those who could afford to do so with vouchers.

sounds like class warfare.

The CONCEPT of private schools educating students better than most public schools is proven. The only question is which schools would fill the gap. My guess is it would be a combination of existing schools hot for more bucks and new schools eager to take advantage of the opportunity.

and if there is something in the system that prevents that...then why not address it and fi it vs. starting from scratch?

Many of them have proven to be the same kind of disasters public school have been, but that's another post.

Private schools have no requirement that they have to take every single student that shows up at the front door. There is no way to say they're proven until that is the standard for every private school.

Why is THAT the standard? If a school can effectively educate 90% of the student population, let them. Find another more specialized school for the other 10%. Right now, public schools can handle all 100%.

In order for that to be true, they would have to be operating under the same circumstances as public schools. Think back to science classes. To determine the impact of one change, everything else has to be the same. Private schools do not have to operate under the same circumstances as public schools.

I'd love to see a private school open for special needs or disadvantaged students. But no, that's who they want to leave in the public schools. And them, after selecting their student body, some want to give them public money to do so.

If you gave me 25 students of average to above average intelligence whose parents supported them and were involved in their education, I could teach them anything with nothing more than a pencil and a piece of paper. What exactly does that prove?

I don't think you grasp just how bad things are in many school districts. You are ready for a theoretical debate and we are worried about school -- now, this year.

I had enough dealings with the D.C. school system to last a lifetime. It should be shut down. The buildings blown up, the books burned and the teachers fired. Then and only then, someone sane should start over.

But until that day, what do poor parents do? They can't opt out of the horrendous public systems because of money and they can't send their kids to these non-academies. Vouchers provide an option.

Brian has just been captured by the Romans, and is scheduled for execution.

His compatriots call a special action meeting to organize a rescue. Then they spend the rest of the night adopting resolutions and arguing whether parliamentary proceedure allows a substitute resolution when an amendment has already been placed on the floor for a vote.

Reminds me of people who say the system is broken, kids are being ruined, so let's fund a study to see how admissions standards can be reformed at teaching colleges.

At the level of cosmic platitudes, everyone is in favor of world class schools. It is a great sacred cow. Politicians make speeches, endlessly. We set goals. And we keep spending more and more money.

But we've been doing this for 30-40 years, without apparent effect.

Money is not the solution. We've proven that. You're studying to be a teacher. I hope against hope that YOUR teachers have examined the many examples of extremely expensive failure. If I may ask, what have YOU learned from, say, Kansas City or DC? And what have YOU learned from the inner-city parochial schools that routinely outperform the neighboring public schools at a fraction of the cost?

The problems run much deeper than money. Are we prepared to enforce discipline? Expel the incorrigibles and keep them out? Accept ability grouping? End social promotion? Hold teachers to high academic standards? Reform or abolish tenure? Rethink -- and perhaps significantly curtail -- mainstreaming of handicapped kids? Encourage lateral entry to enlarge the potential teaching pool -- and pay mid-career switchers appropriately, instead of starting them back down at the bottom of the pay escalator?

There are many excellent schools, public, private, and parochial. We know what works. But there are far too many persistent failures. The failures need to imitate the successes, but too often that doesn't happen. The reason is that other priorities displace academics. This is a governance and accountability problem, not a money problem. The attraction of vouchers is that they cut the Gordian knot on accountability by empowering the parents.

Frankly, not all parents value academic excellence. Others are unwilling to invest the time and energy it takes to be active participants in their children's success. It is these parents who insist that their thug kids not be disciplined, or that their little morons be promoted with their friends, or that their emotionally disabled kids be mainstreamed. When these kinds of parents reach critical mass, they will defeat the reformers 19 times out of 20. That's the historical record.

An adequately financed voucher would give moderate income, academically serious parents a way out, short of moving to the suburbs. Some of the opposition to vouchers comes from irresponsible parents who resent the prospect of their kids being left behind. Tough noogies. It's time to stop letting the bad actors corrupt the system for everyone else.

Goes to you too.

the current system it is worth saving and fixing

If by the "current system" you mean a system that is slow and unresponsive to the complaints of parents I would say no, it is not worth saving. The idea of publicly funded education is a great one, the decision of having a monopoly deliver it is not.

"the current system it is worth saving and fixing...and we could do it IF WE GAVE A DAMN. the truth is: as a nation, we dont. we have other priorities."

Noiretblu has hit the nail squarely on the head. Many (but surely not all) of the failures of the public schools can be traced to a shameful truth, education is a secondary priority. My wife works in a public school and the number of regulations they have to follow that have absolutely nothing to do with education vastly outweigh the regs that do. Over 80% of the regulations come from the federal government which provides less than 15% of the total funding. Perhaps a better approach would be for the government to say, "Run your school your own way and we'll fund so long as the students are learning."

How can you determine whether or not something works without trying it?

the NEA has spent millions of dollars of teachers dues nationwide to defeat ot tie proposed voucher programs up in court.

In the two operating cases, their is mounting empirical evidence that they DO work, and not only that but that the programs have encouraged the public schools to get their shit together

are popular with some Democratic inner-city officeholders and are a difficult issue to confront when they are strictly means tested and limited in number. It takes a long time to turn around a big school system. Democrats statewide are trying to limit them rather than eliminate them now that they are in use.

But they are usually people I don't think should be in charge of educating their children.

:kick:
J4Clark

Unless the portion of your taxes that goes to public education is equal to or greater than the amount of the voucher you would receive under an even remotely workable plan (which I doubt), aren't you asking the rest of us to help put your kid through private school?

I am asking for the state to educate my children as is mandated by law. Clearly, in many cases -- especially in poor areas -- it is unable to do so. Since it can't fix that problem over night, I want another option.

We'll try this more slowly.

I am asking for the state to educate my children as is mandated by law.

Fair enough.

Clearly, in many cases -- especially in poor areas -- it is unable to do so. Since it can't fix that problem over night, I want another option.

Are vouchers your preferred option?

the state should step up to its reponsibility, be held accountable by parents. too many are simply going along with the program.

Tating - I am the fertility god and I have just blessed you with three children.

A bright, inquisitive, artistic 5th grader. A studious practical 3rd grader. And a dyslexic first grader. I'm a god and know there is no such thing as perfection in humans.

Assuming you are on a limited budget and driving children to one school is all your budget and work schedule can accommodate, how are you going to choose a school? What criteria are you going to use to determine that each child's educational requirements are met in order for them to reach their full potential? What kind of curriculum. What reading program do they use and how do you know its effectiveness? Concrete math or rote math and how do you know which they use? What reading program works for both dyslexic children and artistic children? Does the dyslexic child need extra help, what works best and what works if no special ed teacher is available? What kind of principal do you want and why? What kind of teaching method will engage your studious 3rd grader but not overwhelm your dyxlexic first grader?

That's good for a start. You've got vouchers. How are you going to know what school is going to educate your children?

If you are wrong, you switch.

If you're so confused, you can't make a choice, you leave your kids in public schools.

At least you have options. And you don't have to exercise them if you don't want to.

How can that be worse than what we currently have?

That was very informative to help a parent know how to discern a quality school.

How is a crap shoot better than what we currently have?

If parents were armed with the kind of facts they need to pick a quality private school, they'd be armed with the facts to change their public school. It's really not their fault, the kind of facts they need usually aren't studied and aren't part of the information released to parents when they are.

Are you a parent?

Haven't you read any of my other posts. I have a six year old son. He's in the most expensive private school in town for $ 7,800 per year. It's his third year.

We just got the results from his first standardized test that he took at the end of kindergarten. He reads at the 99 th percentile, His vocabulary is at the 99th percentile. Listening comprehension 87 % and math 76 %. He likes reading Hank the Cowdog.

And a parent picking a school for his/her kids will not be a crapshoot. Parents, even the worst parents, care more about their kids than anyone else does. Parents will spend plenty of time asking, reading and visiting to find what they consider the best school for their kids if they're given a choice. We sure did and we're no better than anyone else.

And if the school you're going to for sure sucks, maybe taking a shot at another for a few months isn't such a bad gamble.

These opinions come from teaching nine years in a public high school and having multitudes of parent conferences over those years.

I know exactly what you mean by checking out how the kids behave to decide what a school is like. Maybe you didn't read my kneejerk post, 45, 4 grown kids. I got to the point where I could tell by walking in the door and feeling the energy level, even when they were in class. Some stern and cold, some ready to explode, some with the right energetic, hopeful feel. But, most parents haven't been through enough schools to know there's that kind of difference, or maybe I'm just more sensitive to my surroundings.

So my question still stands, how does a parent who is not a teacher choose a quality school? Look at those things I asked, they were chosen for specific reasons. Does the average parent even know there's different methods of teaching reading? Most don't and it's not because they're bad parents. It's because they just don't know. So what if your child's test scores weren't what you'd hoped for? You know how to evaluate the curriculum and teaching philosophy and decide if its suitable or whether you need to choose a different school. If you were a public school parent, you'd go to the teacher and/or principal and express the same concerns. But if you don't even know that there are alternatives, then what? You sure don't know what to say to the public school teacher and you also don't know what to do to pick a better private school. Parents need more information about the curriculum and education philosophy of the schools.

And I honestly don't remember much about posters, old age and all of that I guess. I don't even know if you're male or female and I'm sure you're very proud of your little boy. I don't know if I should say this or not, but my kids' test scores were about the same in 1st grade at public school. Third grade is where the nosedive starts, that's just a little heads up. You sincerely might want to go ask for the score averages for 3rd and 4th grade to really get a handle on the school's abilities.

So my question still stands, how does a parent who is not a teacher choose a quality school?

Typical arrogant response. Parents are too stupid to know how to choose a school so we will do them a favor by not letting them. Brilliant.

Parents don't need to evaluate how the coach uses Bloom's Taxonomy in gym class to tell if they're picking a quality school or not.

They can walk the halls, look in the windows, talk to teachers, friends and neighbors and get a pretty good idea of whether there is learning going on or not.

When I was evaluating the choices of schools for my kid, twice while I was meeting with an administrator, the bell rang for change of classes. Each time I excused myself and stood in the hall and watched the kids go by. I eliminated one school right there because there was not order and the kids were not treating each other in a way I wanted my family associated.

I think parents would do just fine.

Would you support vouchers for people who are tired of the cruddy police department? The local security company gets together and starts riling up their clients, they shouldn't have to pay extra for security when they're already paying taxes for cops. Get a voucher from the city and county and you can even have a guard when you go into dangerous neighborhoods. Never be without protection again.

Does that seem right to you?

But again, it's just rich people.

Education is the cornerstone of democracy. The government is failing in its obligation to provide an effective education and it won't deliver one anytime soon to many students. It is the only viable option to save our children now.

Which is exactly what happens today when a student with a Pell grant chooses to go to a religious school--your tax money is going to a private, religious school. Voucher proponents aren't asking for anything that hasn't already been going on for more than 30 years.

Are you suggesting that Pell grants be restricted to public colleges and universities?

Are you suggesting that Pell grants be restricted to public colleges and universities?

Yes.

caveat - actually, no. A university education isn't included in my idea of a *basic* social commitment to education. The case can very well be made that it should be, but that isn't my point here. For the time being, as long as public money isn't being taken for private *secondary* or *primary* education, I think I'm ok with college education being treated differently.

Although it's still asking other people to help you out with a private education for your kid. :)

Is your opposition based on the fact that the private schools might be religious in nature, or are you opposed to public funding of all forms of private institutions?

or are you opposed to public funding of all forms of private institutions?

We're talking about schools, not "all forms of private institutions".

In terms of schools, yes - I am opposed to public funding of any private school, religious or otherwise.

Since clearly many school systems are NOT providing a public education at acceptable levels, where are the poor supposed to go in your ideal world?

rich, middling and poor *all* attend schools - of whatever kind - that are well-funded, whose teachers are qualified and well-paid, and whose parents are involved...and where learning happens.

Given that this isn't that world, I don't want to see us devolve into one where a political fix helps the very few to the even greater detriment of the many.

THEIR kids aren't in the public schools. Worry about the many who can't get out.

I'm talking about the folks whose kids would actually be freed from a failing public school under a voucher program.

I'm talking about a program that provides enough reimbursement for a private school option.

that a voucher program that covers private school tuition - entirely and for all American children - is politically viable?

Actually, it is, except that it costs less money. It's called "public education".

Don't need to be anywhere near what they are right now in many places.

Current schools charge for a beautiful building, a wonderful campus, a big name, cachet. They get the biggest name faculty they can find and well-known guest lecturers.

I don't expect any of that. I am looking for a VIABLE education and that can be done for much less.

You don't need a school or a schoolyard. For recess, set up a fitness facility in one room or let the kids do aerobics or something. But the important thing is the learning and for that you need something better than we have now.

We're talking about schools, not "all forms of private institutions".

Which leads me to my next question. Why the kneejerk opposition to money going to private schools? Since you apparently have no problem with public tax money going to private institutions like grocery stores (via food stamps), doctors (via Medicaid), and construction companies (via road projects), what makes schools different?

Note: I actually share your concern for money going to religious schools.

serve the common good and provide a *base* of services. Public schools, medicaid, food stamps and road projects are *base* and necessary services. Public funds that go to private schooling, unless they come from sources otherwise not earmarked for public schooling, deprive the government that much more of the ability to provide those basic services to the benefit of the select.

In your list of things that are "base and necessary services", you include public schools, medicaid, and food stamps, and road projects. However, three of these services are provided by the private sector, schools being the exception. So I ask again, why are schools treated differently? Why is it Ok for public money to build a road go to a private institution but not Ok for public money go to educate a kid? You still haven't explained why schools should be treated differently.

Medicaid provides services to the poor, and is therefore a base service by nature. Same with food stamps. Roads are useable by anyone.

Unless you are going to posit a nation full of private schools willing to accept all comers, public money for private education equates to public resources given for the benefit of the few.

Let's cut to the chase, Nederland: to work, public education must be essentially socialist. :7

Yes, we made the decision in the latter half of the nineteenth century to socialize elementary and secondary education, and rightly so. What Nederland is questioning -- along with several others of us on this thread -- is whether a monopoly provider model is any longer the best approach.

We give college students Pell Grants, GSLs, and GI Bill benefits and let them choose their own school. This works well. We give people food stamps and let them choose their own grocery and menu. This works well. Housing support is a mixed bag but in general, giving people a rent support check (a voucher) and letting them find their own apartments is preferable to large, fixed site projects.

K-12 education is no different. We can socialize the function -- i.e., make the service universally available and publicly funded -- but allow people very broad latitude in choosing schools that fit their kids' needs. Kids are different. Families and communities are different. One size fits all usually ends up not fitting anyone very well. We can and should allow choice. Progressives used to call this "empowering the poor." I'm for it.

The same principle applies, BTW, to health care and Social Security, but let's not stray too far off topic ....:)

Bottom line: I don't understand why so many folks here think all solutions must be collectivist, centralized, and rigidly controlled. Monopolies are inherently suspect because they are so prone to self-dealing and abuse of power. It is not surprising that so many public school systems seem to function first and foremost as job programs for adults and patronage mills for politicians. That is what monopolies do. Freedom and individual choice are the remedies.

Rich people have choices. I think it is progressive to allow poor people to have choices too.

Unless you are going to posit a nation full of private schools willing to accept all comers...

That is precisely what I am proposing. What would make you think otherwise?

Private schools are often able to hold themselves to higher academic standards, and thus attract more business, precisely because they *don't* take all comers. If you're going to make private schools accept students with profound developmental delays, for example, what happens to competition? If you're not going to do that, aren't you setting up a system in which some "undesirable" kids are consigned to an educational ghetto?

the kids to go to the place where they get the best education. There are Hindu and Moslem kids in my kid's class in the Christian school.

I've talked to the parents. The kids are there because they checked each school in town and this was the one they thought was best. Religion and other things like that are not important compared to the kid's eductaion.

If I decided a Budhist school was the best one in town, that's where my kid would be. We could handle the religious questions at home. I wouldn't get turned from the main priority which is educating the kid.

Unions, and religion and tax rates are all tangental. The main issue is to get the kid educated.

The issue is using public money to pay for it.

The issue is that the children are entitled to an education and that the state is failing in that commitment.

whose money is going where is tangental.

I want the kids where they will be educated the best. Against that priority, all the rest of the stuff is minor.

Public education is. So when you start giving tax money to religious schools you are taking money that's supposed to fund only education and using it to help support religion.

Not to mention the divisiveness we'd have when we start having religion mixed in with typical school rivalries. Gads. These vouchers are such a bad idea on so many levels.

I'm opposed to taxpayer funding for all private schools, religious or secular.

Parents have absolutely no idea what makes a school succeed. They just want to take a voucher and hand their kids off somewhere else and still hope for the best. In 20 years we'll have another study that Johnny Can't Read.

I'm not even sure what makes a school succceed. I only base my opinions on what I've observed, not objective studies because as far as I've seen, there really aren't any. Not ones that really get into every aspect of a school from the books to the actual materials available to the participation of the kids.

Until there is a concrete plan to truly help parents and schools select methods that work, there won't be an improvement in education. All vouchers are is a privatization program to take tax money and redistribute it to an educational corporation to promote corporatism to our children.

I'm opposed to taxpayer funding for all private schools, religious or secular.

Why the kneejerk opposition to money going to private schools? Do you not trust parent to make good decisions? I assume that you have no problem with public tax money going to private institutions like grocery stores (via food stamps), doctors (via Medicaid), and construction companies (via road projects), what makes schools different?

I'm 45 years old. Raised 4 kids. Seen white flight. Seen the rise of 'religious' schools because it's the 'religion' you know. It's not race or class, nope it's religion and morals. Right.

Hardly kneejerk.

Grocery stores, doctors and construction companies aren't creating the next generation of citizens who will chart the course of our country. What they're taught about the Constitution matters. Whether they're brought up in segregated schools matters, and not just racially segregated either.

Vouchers would be the final nail in the coffin for any hope of true equal opportunity in this country. It might take a little while, but the result would be another step towards the Gilded Age. I really can't think of a worse idea for our country than vouchers.

I don't think I've asked you to answer it yet, but nobody else has taken me up on it. Maybe you'll surprise me.

As what we currently have. Oops, nope, nowhere near THAT bad.

If you can't answer those questions, you really have no solutions on what would improve a school.

Of children with special needs, I would have been reading on the subject for years. And that would influence my choices immensely.

But you try and paint me into a box with the scenario when real life isn't like that. Why only one school? I know tons of parents that share responsibilities with other parents for school travel. I could do the same. Hell, I know PET OWNERS who have figured that one out.

Based on your post #93, you seem to think that ordinary citizens can't pick schools that would work for their children. Honestly, I could throw darts and pick schools better than many urban school districts. At the high end, this might be a challenging exercise. At the low end, where those systems reside, it is pretty damn easy to do better.

Lieberman supports pilot programs for vouchers, provided that (1) the vouchers are ONLY available to students from poor families (i.e., no subsidies to families who can already afford to send their kids to private schools) and (2) the money doesn't come out of the public school budget (so those kids who remain in public schools aren't harmed).

Honestly, I can't see the harm in setting up a few pilot programs (under the conditions described above), just to see if there's any merit to the idea. I'm a strong supporter of public education, but I'm not such an ideologue on this subject that I'm unwilling to consider the possibility that the best public education may, in certain situations, be a publicly funded private school education. And as a believer in equal opportunity, I have a hard time opposing something that gives poor families the opportunity to send their kids to the same private schools that more affluent families send their children too. I was fortunate enough to live in a relatively wealthy community that had a well funded public schools sustem. But not everyone is so lucky, and I really do sympathize with poor families who feel as if they're trapped in a failing school system.

Lieberman is a damn politician.

It's too late for PILOT programs, the plane is crashing. This won't work without a major commitment because that is the only way new schools will be created. And sure, I understand why some would leave the money in the school system, it's just more for them to waste.

Like any "reform," a good quick way to judge programs to reform American public education is to see who's pushing them. Vouchers (and "school choice") are being pushed by people who hate public education, because it's where children are taught to share, taught that religion is a matter of opinion but science is a matter of fact, taught that the U.S. hasn't always been history's hero, and taught that races, religions, and lifestyles other than one's own are entitled to respect. I'm not trying to characterize everyone who is presently for vouchers or school choice, only the S.O.B.s who got the ball rolling.

Anyone who has ever taught in the public schools will understand how dependent any school is on its community of concerned parents. A certain percentage of parents (varies from school to school and district to district) range from apathetic to actively hostile to education for their children. The children of these parents tend to be behavior problems, academic problems, etc. On the other hand, you have the informed parents who care and support their children's education. These parents and their children are school leaders. Nothing good ever gets done without them.

Now, begin by starving the public schools for funds for a couple of decades. Use junk logic and junk science to pretend that money doesn't improve education, that smaller classes don't matter, etc. Then trump up a case that the public schools are failing. Be sure to include statistics on ESL students and handicapped students that weren't even counted in your comparison period of the 50s and 60s. Standard propaganda techniques geared to specific communities will get the concerned parents up in arms about their children's education. Then present vouchers or school choice as the only possible solution and watch their desperation solve your problems.

So where's the harm? Voucher/school choice proponents say that only enough money to education one student is taken away for each student that is taken away. But that assumes that you can just hire and fire teachers and expand or contract the school building based on changes in the enrollment. If you can educate 1,000 students for $1.5 million per year, does that mean you can educate one for $1,500?

But worse than that is the fact that the students/parents who will leave the underperforming schools are the ones that are needed the most desperately, the ones who care. It doesn't matter whether they go to private schools or "better" public schools, what they leave behind will be a hopeless mess, with plenty of students still in it. They might as well put bars in the windows and hire guards instead of teachers. Vouchers or school choice won't get rid of the "bad" schools because all of the students (by law) will have to go somewhere, and the "good" schools won't be able to magically absorb all of them. And they won't want to, not if they want to remain "good" schools (what makes a good school good is mostly the motivation of the students and the parents, regardless of socioeconomic class). So this just redistributes the students by tier, and consigns large numbers of them to inevitable academic failure.

I've heard vouchers described as a program to rescue students off a sinking ship. It's more like a program to rescue a handful of students of a ship that MIGHT sink, and then scuttle the ship in deep ocean with the rest of the students on board. Big appeal to lovers of elitism. The tragic thing is that parents tend to think of their own children as among the few "saved" and other people's children among the many drowned.

I mean no disrespect to people who deplore the tendency of voucher programs to get around the separation of church and state or to undo desegregation. Those are valid concerns. I merely wish to point out that the danger of vouchers is both larger and more fundamental than just that. Even voucher/school choice programs which are nonsectarian and preserve racial integration are still disastrous for the reasons noted above.

thanks for sharing it.

The people who want to push vouchers are the same people who time and again fail to respond to the millions of children with no access to health care.

"School choice" is just a phrase that hides their true agenda.

Any parent anywhere in the US does not have to send their child to public school. They have a choice. Most choose public schools.
Parents can send their children to private schools, religious schools, cyberschools, charter schools, home school, etc....
Explain to me how parents do not have "choice".

Because your post is so far removed from the real world.

Any parent with MONEY can have choice. Poor parents have no fucking choice.

everyone would still have the choice to have an abortion because they could just take the Concorde to France.

what kind of dreamworld do YOU live in?

that was my point.

:hi: my bad :D

"So where's the harm? Voucher/school choice proponents say that only enough money to education one student is taken away for each student that is taken away. But that assumes that you can just hire and fire teachers and expand or contract the school building based on changes in the enrollment. If you can educate 1,000 students for $1.5 million per year, does that mean you can educate one for $1,500?

Exactly. My school bus driver receives the same pay, even though he's only driving 50 kids instead of 65. My food service worker gets the same pay, though she's only feeding 250 kids instead of 325. My teacher gets the same pay, even though she's only teaching 20 kids instead of 23. My utility costs are the same, even though the school enrollment is reduced by 50 kids. We still have a superintendent, principals, and on and on. Sure, obviously we would reduce staff proportionally when possible, but there are MANY MANY times it just isn't possible. Costs don't follow a straight line progression.